The UNHRC passed resolution 25/1 to promote “reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka,” and asked the OHCHR to begin a comprehensive investigation into “alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties” during the period covered by the LLRC. The government refused to assist the OHCHR in its inquiry. In response to subsequent UN requests for the government to cooperate with the investigation, the government publicly rejected the investigation and declined to cooperate in any way.” US Human Rights Report 2014

The recently released 2014 US Human Rights Report has vehemently denounced the governing style of the Rajapaksa regime. The State Department report also reflects that its contempt of the previous regime is an indication that Sri Lanka now needs to enter the American orbit. In presenting the 2014 Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the US provides a forceful and pugnacious judgment of the previous Rajapaksa administration’s entire second term not only for the year 2014 as mandated by the US Congress in reporting human rights practices on individual nations but also for the past period.

The Rajapaksa regime did not heed the call of the United States and some Western powers to arrange a ceasefire with the leadership of the LTTE which faced an imminent defeat in the final weeks in May 2009, a State Department design to prevent a total annihilation of the secessionist movement to save the group as a ‘pressure group’ to check the purported ‘Sinhalese chauvinistic tendencies’ of the nation’s governance. The final report in its Sri Lanka section has been refined and broadened obviously since the advent of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration. The contents of the report indicate the need for Sri Lanka to adhere to Washington’s call that Sri Lanka needs to cooperate with Geneva to settle its accountability and transparency issues. It is to be noted that both Sri Lanka and Israel have been accused of violating international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, but in dealing with these two nations the United States has taken two contradictory positions: the US has supported the Israeli decision to boycott the UNHRC sessions that discuss Israeli violations while the US was critical of the previous Rajapaksa regime’s decision to maintain a distance from the Geneva process. Israel refused entry to a UNHRC official for investigation of alleged violations in the Gaza Strip during its battle with Hamas. In fact, the US sponsored three resolutions were critical of the manner in which Sri Lanka handled the final stages of the military battle against the secessionist Tamil Tigers bringing accountability and transparency into the debate and deliberations.

interview The American Ambassador-designate to Sri Lanka Atul Keshap who visited Colombo in June 2014 as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the South Asia Bureau was critical of Sri Lanka’s Rajapaksa administration’s decision to keep a distance from the UNHRC.”Sri Lanka risked joining the likes of North Korea, Iran and Syria by refusing to cooperate with international probes”, said Atul Keshap, during his three day visit to Sri Lanka, in an interview with the media. Atul Keshap testified before the US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on 23 June before confirmation as the new American Ambassador to Sri Lanka.

This piece attempts to demonstrate the duplicitous stance taken by the US which is also a blatant human rights violator as seen in its activities in Guantanamo Bay and in Vietnam in particular. “Kill Anything That Moves”: this title is taken from an order given to the US forces who slaughtered more than 500 Vietnamese civilians in the notorious My Lai massacre of 1968. Drawing on interviews in Vietnam and a trove of previously unknown US Government documents including internal military investigations of alleged war crimes in Vietnam, Nick Turse – Managing Editor of TomDispatch.com and author of ‘Kill Anything that Moves’ – ‘The Real American War in Vietnam’ argues that US atrocities in Vietnam were not just isolated incidents, but “the inevitable outcome of deliberate policies, dictated at the highest levels of the military.”

The duplicity of the United States in the protection of human rights in the world is very evident from their own horrifying record of human rights abuses which remain un-probed by any international investigation up to date. During the Vietnam War the US Forces committed innumerable horrifying atrocities as revealed in the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Files a collection of (formerly secret) documents compiled by Pentagon investigators in the early 1970s, confirming that atrocities by US forces during the Vietnam War were more extensive than had been officially acknowledged. Of the 26 US soldiers initially charged with criminal offences or war crimes for actions at My Lai, only William Calley was convicted. Calley only served three years and a half in ‘House Arrest’ instead.

In cowardly drone attacks the US massacred large numbers of innocent women and children in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries in the world. Subsequent to the 9/11 attacks in the United States by the Al-qaeda, United States appears to be engaged in a witch-hunt indiscriminately murdering human beings all over the world in acts of unwarranted revenge targeting innocent Muslims wherever and whenever it suits them to do so.

terrorizingThe American website Policymic reported thus: ‘Meanwhile, US drones are killing children and terrorizing families abroad. Earlier this year, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that 176 children have been murdered in Pakistan alone. And along with drone attacks an average of 4.8 children are killed per day in Afghanistan where earlier this year, a US sergeant is reported to have killed nine children. Will these murders be deemed worthy of our thoughts and prayers, or even our news headlines? When we worry about the safety of our children, we forget that it is our drone strikes, our money and our democratically-elected government that cause the same fear in select countries around the world.

And yet, Americans are going to spend thousands of hours supporting or protesting various gun laws to “save the children,” here at home. But in reality, Americans could save many more children if they protested our own government’s killing of hundreds of children abroad. But Americans won’t spend their time this way, even if it would save more children’s lives. It seems that Americans should care when any child is murdered, not just when American ones are.’

The truth behind the deceitful American concerns about human rights violations in Sri Lanka is to bully Sri Lanka into submission so as to make our motherland a power base in Asia subservient to the edicts of the US Government.The US Government under the Bush Administration adopted the American Service-members’ Protection Act (ASPA) in an attempt to protect any US citizen from appearing before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ASPA is a United States federal law introduced by US Senator Jesse Helms as an amendment to the National Defence Authorization Act and passed in August 2002 by Congress. The stated purpose of the amendment was “to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States Government against criminal prosecution by an international Criminal Court to which the US is not a party.” It authorizes the US President to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.”

This has led to the nickname, ‘The Hague Invasion Act,’ since such freeing of US citizens by force might only be possible through an invasion of The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of several international Criminal Courts and the seat of the Dutch Government. The Act prohibits federal, State and local governments and (including Courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the Court. For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the United States to the Court; it prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the Court; and it prohibits agents of the Court from conducting investigations in the United States.

responsibilityThe said Act interferes with the application or implementation of the principle of command responsibility when applied to US citizens. US President Obama is liable to be charged before the ICC for war crimes committed under his command responsibility by the ongoing drone attacks. In conclusion, it must be said that a day of reckoning will come even to a very powerful nation as shown in history. Sri Lankans are a dignified courageous and a peace-loving nation whose spirit can never be broken down by threats, torture or a show of force. There is peace and tranquility in our land and the great majority of the Sri Lankans do not desire any foreign interference in the internal affairs in their land.

The reported arrest of eight persons, all Tamils, for allegedly seeking to defame the armed forces through propaganda films, should be a cause for alarm for the nation’s security agencies and forces. Better or worse still, it should be a cause for concern for the Tamils in the country, and more so their moderate political leadership in the Tamil National Alliance (TNA).

It will take time before the police complete their investigations, and decide whether or not to approach the courts. If the case then goes to the court, it would be for the judiciary pronounce if they are guilty of the offences now claimed against them. But the politics and the counter-propaganda that the arrests have now made, if and when taken to the logical conclusion, has the potential to harass the present government at the Centre and embarrass the larger Tamil community and their social and political leaderships.

According to reports, the eight persons were dubbing for a documentary film for the famed Channel IV television in the UK. Every Sri Lankan, nearer home and afar, now identifies the channel as the one that brought out a particular version of the concluding days/hours of the very decisive Eelam War IV.

The channel is remembered even more for the exclusive expose of LTTE leader Prabhakaran’s innocent-looking young son, Balachandran, munching from a packet of crispy in one frame and with a fatal bullet wound in another. None thus far has asked or has been told about the time-gap between the two shots, and if a child, surrounded by what he would have been indoctrinated as crude and brute gun-wielding enemies, would be looking so casual and totally un-agitated and in full control and charge of the self. If nothing else, the father could have been expected to tell his little one not to expect mercy from the Tamil community’s ultimate tormentors.

The police seems to suggest that the work of the arrested persons was illegal, and possibly in more ways than one. It has neither been stated, nor proved thus far, but the implication is that they were doing something, whose single and sole purpose was to bring (further?) discredit to the nation’s armed forces. If they were working for the Channel IV team, and if they were doing something illegal and improper, then does it imply that all other works of the kind could have been listed so or, could still be listed so?

Truth and veracity

These are questions, but clearer answers for these and others would be known when, and only when the police investigations are concluded and a court case, if any goes through the logical process. It’s going to take its time, and fairly so, but the international community in particular, should already begin preparing its defence for all the charges and accusations made in the past, based on other products and productions of the kind.

Chief among the questions that the police investigators in the matter would (have to) relate to the truth and veracity of the canned material that has been seized. Channel IV in particular had sworn for the authenticity of the material it had presented in the past on similar lines. Otherwise, it would have and should have pulled out what has by now become a series, predictably timed for a UNHRC session or something important occurring in the Sri Lankan context, either inside the country or elsewhere.

The channel did not try to distance or disown the telecast material in the past. So there is nothing to question the veracity or the channel’s strong belief in the veracity of what had been telecast in the past. So it becomes all the more important for the Sri Lankan police to fast-track their investigations following the arrest of these eight persons, and also prove that they were fabricated.

Consequences for UNHRC?

The nation’s courts apart, only then would the international community be convinced enough to question their past conclusions, based on near-similar material of whatever kind. Who knows, it may then have consequences for the pending UNHRC probe report on war crimes and accountability issues. If proved vitiated by motives and interpolations by the arrested eight, then it may have serious consequences for all that is being said on the accountability issues and war crimes.

They are not directly linked in anyway whatsoever, but any discredit heaped on one expose on war crimes allegations has the potential to challenge such others as well, if only in the mind’s eyes of the beholder. It’s thus that the Darusman Report may come to be challenged for the inputs and sources, from within the new Sri Lankan government, like the predecessor too or such other material that might be ready to be presented in the coming weeks and months.

If nothing else, on Channel IV telecast, the Sri Lankan government had claimed that they are fake and faked and also produced so-called scientific test reports to prove its arguments. The government did not have to work hard on and against the Darusman Report. It was purportedly the private property of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, but got promptly leaked to the media and also got referred to the UNHRC as a basic document of whatever kind.

This is not to say that the Sri Lankan government was correct, and alone was correct. In the light of the eight-man arrest now, it needs however to be recalled that the present rulers, particularly the UNP partners, including Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, had never ever challenged the predecessor government’s claims and accusations on Channel IV, Darusman Report and the UNHRC probe, too. It’s incidental that President Maithripala Sirisena was the acting Defence Minister at the war’s end in mid-May 2009.

The new government promptly purchased time from the UN, prime-mover US and the UNHRC, for the latter to table the pending probe report. It has since been following on the predecessor’s foot-steps, declaring that the probe report, whenever presented, would only guide domestic investigations and legal processes, which alone were constitutionally valid. The government has also continued with the services of the predecessor’s probe team on missing persons. Government leaders even said that some of them (implying that they are Tamils, mostly) might have perished in the war or migrated overseas. Predecessor Rajapaksa regime had even publicly sought the assistance and cooperation of western nations to trace those who might be living in their countries (legally or otherwise???), to add up the numbers.

What after propaganda?

In the light of the current arrests, that too by a government which they see as genuine and sincere, democratic and honest, the international community (read: West) should ask themselves as to what if the perceptions being presented by the media reports on the police investigations thus far are genuine and honest, too. If it implies that it was all a part of propaganda, what end was it then expected/supposed to serve, over the medium and long terms?

It would be a different matter if the police were to conclude that the material now at their disposal was genuine and its veracity and credibility were beyond reproach. Such a finding would doubly-endorse the findings of previous tele-documentaries of the kind, from Channel IV or otherwise. It would also lend, without asking and/or attempting, greater credence and credibility to the rest of the documented probes of whatever kind and by whichever group.

It’s not as if the Colombo arrests automatically lead to anything more sinister until at least proved. But in the air of permissiveness that already exists after the genocide resolution passed by the Northern Provincial Council within weeks of the presidential poll, and the accompanying barrage of pro-LTTE social/traditional media propaganda all over again should raise questions in and for the Sri Lankan State.

Coupled with the fact that identifiable separatist groups have become active all over again in the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora and that the West-condoned (though not inspired) TNGTE is being heard more now than ever in the post-war years, the perceived hardening of the moderates in the TNA should make it difficult for the Sri Lankan State to revive ethnic negotiations, whether now or after the parliamentary polls, whenever held. It’s the right recipe that the separatists have always dined upon in post-Independent Sri Lanka the failure of the moderates to either win their case and cause from the majority Sinhala-shaped Sri Lankan State opinion on the one hand and the moderates’ one unconvincing and half-hearted approach to putting down the extremist positions within the community, building on the common Tamil people’s natural proclivity to take the middle-path!

The first set of variables is already here, and the second set is rearing its ugly head to go. It’s the admixture of this incomprehensible complexity that had failed the Sri Lankan State’s better judgment and that of the armed forces, too. The resultant concoction has always and at every turn been disastrous for the nation as a whole, and the Tamil community even more so. And like the proverbial Nero, the Sinhala-majority ruling class is busy burying its head even more deeply in the constitutional conundrum that they call the 19-A reforms, which again is a sure recipe for a politico-administrative disaster, in turn, in its present form and format.

The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has been urged to monitor the progress in Sri Lanka on the human rights issue and remain vigilant for reprisals against human rights defenders.

Amnesty International, in a submission to the Council last week, said that the Government of Sri Lanka’s post Presidential election commitments and its willingness to re-engage with the United Nations human rights mechanisms are hopeful signs that its leaders may be serious about repairing the damage done to human rights and the rule of law in Sri Lanka over decades.

“Sri Lanka’s formerly adversarial relationship with the United Nations was unhealthy and unproductive. Its new commitment to prioritize engagement with OHCHR is promising; it needs to be backed by concrete acts of cooperation, including determining truth and pursue justice for crimes under international law.

Amnesty International cannot stress enough the need for a thorough accounting and justice for the victims of violations and abuses in Sri Lanka,” Amnesty International said.

Amnesty said that the realisation of promises of domestic accountability measures and justice system reforms should draw on international technical assistance adding that Sri Lanka can benefit from the experience with transitional justice acquired by other countries.

“Where the OHCHR Inquiry uncovers evidence of crimes under international law by any party to the conflict, a genuine prosecutorial process should deal with those suspected of the crimes in proceedings that conform with international standards, provide truth and reparation for victims and draw on Sri Lankan and international expertise,” the London based human rights group said.

Amnesty International strongly encourages Sri Lanka to use the time until the Council considers the OISL report in September 2015 to take specific measures to improve its human rights situation.

The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) is presently facilitating a stimulating online debate titled ‘Is the International Community Abandoning the Fight Against Impunity?’ The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, argues that the international community is not abandoning the fight against impunity, highlighting successes in national and international courts including the trial of former Chadian dictator Hissene Habré in Senegal and urges for a long term outlook. Professor Michael Ignatieff from Harvard University makes a rather sobering point that the international community has its own self-interests when pursuing justice and accountability and that politics ultimately trumps international justice. A victim centered view is injected by Betty Murungi, former Vice Chair of the Kenyan Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission, who suggests that victims should be involved in designing transitional justice programs that speak to their specific concerns. The debate captures the nuances and challenges faced in the search for justice and accountability globally and highlights the growing role played by domestic courts and commissions of inquiry, the last point relevant to Sri Lanka when exploring modalities for truth and justice for past violations. President Maithripala Sirisena’s government has in the past few weeks promised a ‘credible domestic process’ to investigate and inquire into the past and prosecute perpetrators. Two months into the new government, there is no clarity what this domestic process is to entail.

This article briefly makes the case why a domestic process can work in post war Sri Lanka if significant changes are undertaken. The focus on domestic processes does not discount the continuing need for international attention on Sri Lanka but makes the case why there is an opportunity now to explore domestic processes and ensure much needed reform. This includes undertaking wide consultations with different stakeholders when designing a process and identifying areas that require attention, introducing legal and policy reforms and implementing an effective victim and witness protection program. It is also fundamental to rethink structural processes required for such an exercise and introduce a process that is independent, has the required expertise and capacity to deal with serious human rights violations and adheres to international standards.

Present Dynamics in Sri Lanka

At the outset it must be stated that domestic processes can only be effective and address the culture of impunity if there is a genuine political will within the leadership. We have witnessed numerous obstacles that prevented a credible domestic process from being fully implemented in the past including the lack of capacity within key institutions to investigate, indict and prosecute, lack of trust among different groups, the empty promises by successive governments and the inability of the different political stakeholders to agree on steps to genuinely address the grievances of affected communities across Sri Lanka. Efforts now to introduce modalities to address truth and justice in Sri Lanka must address and overcome these issues. A study by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) provides a long list of commissions established by successive governments, with findings and reports of such commissions not publicly available and lack of information on the status of implementation. The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) is an exception in terms of the final report being in the public domain but questions remain regarding the status of implementation of its recommendations. Every effort must be taken to prevent such a repeat.

The frustrations with government initiatives are captured by recent protests across Sri Lanka by families searching for missing loved ones and affected communities. Many of the families have continuously engaged with numerous initiatives in the hope of answers but in most cases not even seen the final commission report, let alone received any information regarding the status of their missing family member. Recent protests also made specific reference to the developments at the 28th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the decision of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to defer the tabling of the report by the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL). The decision to defer the report to the 30th Session of the UNHRC in September 2015 was received with both anger and disappointment by families and affected communities in Sri Lanka, with some making the claim that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. These grievances are very real and must be addressed.

Is a Domestic Process Viable?

A visiting South African delegation led by Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of South Africa Nomaindia Mfeketo recently shared their experiences in tackling transitional justice and the establishment of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (SATRC). The team spoke of the process that subsequently lead to the SATRC, the involvement of victims and families in the process, the decision to include amnesties for particular cases in the event of full disclosure and the provision of reparations. They also made the point that any process at truth and justice must be from within Sri Lanka with the involvement of key stakeholders including victims and affected communities.

Engaging with and involving all stakeholders in the planning for a domestic process is critical and there must be wide national consultations to understand the grievances of the different communities. The preparations should not be speeded through for political expediency but conducted in a manner that is inclusive and participatory. It is also vital that Sri Lankans drive the process, with the support, when required, from the international community. Professor Ignatieff articulates this in the ICTJ debate:

We also need to be realistic about what international justice can and cannot be expected to accomplish. Let us admit, for example, that where justice and truth processes have been most successful— Argentina, Chile, South Africa—it has been their national character—citizens of the same country, perpetrators, and victims, facing each other under the gaze of a justice that has national legitimacy—that has produced the most enduring peace and reconciliation afterwards. If reconciliation is ever to make progress in Sri Lanka—and the new government may be edging cautiously in that direction—outsiders can help as facilitators, but the real work will be done by Sri Lankans on both sides who realize, essentially, that their island will never be governable and will never make economic progress until reconciliation—and some national justice for crimes by security forces and insurgents alike—take place.

The question to ask is whether we Sri Lankans are ready and able to address issues of truth and justice. Can we overcome the petty bickering and emotional theatrics by sections of Sri Lankan society and diaspora to realize the grievances of affected communities across Sri Lanka? Can we engage in a genuine dialogue of the past, without being bogged down by opportunists both in Sri Lanka and outside? Can the voices of victims, families and affected communities be given due attention when designing and planning a process for truth and justice? Professor Ignatieff makes the case why political interests can undermine international justice. The same can be said in the search for truth and justice within a domestic setting. We, as Sri Lankans, must use this moment to hold our leaders to account and ensure this opportunity is not lost in realizing lasting peace and reconciliation.

Benchmarks for a Domestic Process

Several steps must be taken during the design stage and in the actual implementation of domestic processes. Experiences from past initiatives provide a glimpse to lessons that should be learnt. The importance of wide consultations has been made. This is essential to ensure ownership of the process and to be inclusive and transparent when moving forward. Wide consultations also provide credibility to a process that is meant to reconcile and to address grievances of communities. It must also be noted that a truth telling process alone is insufficient and there must be attention on accountability processes via special tribunals or trials and also other forms of transitional justice such as reparations and memorialization. It is also timely to revisit work of previous investigations including examining reports of past commissions and committees.

Benchmarks should be identified to strengthen domestic processes. The following list is not exhaustive but provides a starting point in the discussions that must take place in the coming days and weeks:

Clarity in terms of mandate and objective of domestic processes.

Identify the time period under review.

Legal and policy reform including introducing new legislation to introduce independent mechanisms for truth telling, justice and accountability and to ensure the domestic framework in conformity to international standards.

Identifying individuals for a truth telling process who are respected and have expertise in areas of law, governance, human rights, history, psychosocial issues and other relevant areas. Similarly, identifying individuals with the necessary legal and other skills for an accountability process is essential.

Steps should be taken to address issues based on ethnic, religious and gender sensitivities.

Implement an effective victim and witness protection mechanism.

Disseminate information in all languages regarding the different initiatives and how the public can engage with such processes.

Take steps to ensure independence of such processes including setting up an independent fund and employing independent counsel and investigators. In this regard the debates regarding the establishment of an Office of an Independent Prosecutor should be revisited and follow up action taken.

Recruit necessary support staff including competent and experienced translators.

No amnesties should be offered for serious human rights violations including war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Ways Forward

In the weeks and months ahead, there is likely to be numerous debates in terms of what is needed and viable in Sri Lanka. It is unlikely there will be uniform acceptance of any one model. Some sections of society will continue to debate even the need to have a domestic process. Others will dismiss any domestic initiative and continue their calls for international action. The dynamics and challenges are such that these debates are unlikely to be resolved in the immediate future.

Ultimately, Sri Lankans must decide on the most suitable processes in terms of truth and justice in Sri Lanka. President Maithripala Sirisena and his government have a historic opportunity to address the past and decide on ways forward. This is a moment to address failures of past exercises and take steps to ensure there is non-recurrence of violence. A confidence building measure in this regard is to make public reports of all past investigations and inquiries and provide a status update regarding the implementation of recommendations. But it should not stop at this. The Sirisena government should follow through with their promises. And we must hold them to it.

The Sri Lankan Government says it will not follow the South African Truth and Reconciliation system but use it as an example to create a home grown system.

Deputy Foreign Minister Ajith Perera said that a high level South African delegation will arrive in Sri Lanka next week to discuss Sri Lanka’s reconciliation efforts.

“We will not do what they are doing. We will learn from them and use our experts to create a system to co-exist in our country,” he said.

He also said that several countries have commended the new Government over the efforts it has taken to address human rights concerns.

The Deputy Minister said that Japan and India were among the countries which praised the new Government over the efforts it has taken within a short period of time.

He said that the Ambassador of Japan, Nobuhito Hobo met him today and said that the Government had achieved a “diplomatic victory” over a short period of time.

Perera said that he had also met the Deputy Indian High Commissioner in Colombo Arindam Bagchi who had offered Indian assistance to the new Government.

The biggest diplomatic victory achieved by the Sri Lankan Government was the recent decision taken by the UN Human Rights Council to delay the presentation of a report based on investigations conducted over the war in Sri Lanka.

The UNHRC agreed to delay the report after the Government had assured a credible domestic probe into incidents related to the war.

The Deputy Minister said that Sri Lanka has been given a challenge to address the human rights concerns before the September session of the UNHRC and the Government is ready to face that challenge.

Hugo Swire urged all sides to continue to work together to ensure that the OHCHR’s report on Sri Lanka, now due in September, is thorough and consistent.

Speaking the day after the UN Human Rights Council agreed to defer publication of the report from March to September 2015, Swire welcomed the opportunity for contribution from the Sri Lankan government and restated the UK’s commitment to seeing this report published.

Swire, who is the UK Government minister responsible for India and Sri Lanka said: “The UK wants to see reconciliation in Sri Lanka. That’s why we argued last year for a UN investigation into alleged war crimes and it is why we supported the deferral of this report for six months.

“We believe that the extra time will create an opportunity for the new Sri Lankan government to deliver on its commitment to engage with the UN investigation, potentially generating additional material to inform the High Commissioner’s report. And it will allow the Sri Lankan government to establish their own credible accountability processes.

“The UN investigation is a vital part of the process of addressing the grievances of those affected by the conflict and of achieving lasting peace in Sri Lanka. And we recognise how important this report is for many communities in Sri Lanka and around the world who are looking for answers. That’s why we, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have made clear that the report must be published and discussed by September 2015 and we will stick to that.

“In the meantime, the new Government of Sri Lanka must use this time to work with the High Commissioner and his Office, and to engage with the broadest possible spectrum of civil society groups within Sri Lanka in order to make progress on reconciliation, accountability and human rights. They have a real opportunity to build a successful, inclusive and prosperous future for their country. But achieving that potential is all about reconciliation. It’s about bringing justice and closure and healing to Sri Lanka and we encourage the Sri Lankan government to take this path to a brighter future.”

The United Nations (UN) says it will be carefully assessing developments related to the domestic accountability mechanism in Sri Lanka.

Farhan Haq, Deputy Spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban ki-moon, said that Ban had encouraged the Government to engage continuously with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein.

Haq was responding to a question on the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) decision to defer a report on Sri Lanka which was to be submitted to the Council during its 28th session next month, to September.

“First of all, in terms of the next steps, the Secretary‑General is aware that the new administration is planning to set up a domestic accountability mechanism and will be carefully assessing developments,” Farhan Haq said.

He recalled that the Secretary‑General met with the Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera last Friday and stressed the importance of Sri Lanka to show firm and clear commitment to accountability, reconciliation and human rights.

“Advancing accountability, like other parts of the post-war agenda in Sri Lanka, will lay the basis for the country to make further progress on peace, democracy and development. The UN remains committed to support Sri Lanka’s efforts to address the postwar agenda,” he added.

He also noted that the Secretary‑General is aware of reactions from various communities to the decision by the Human Rights Council, and that the Secretary‑General will positively engage with the new Government and support its efforts.

The United States expressed support to the decision taken by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to postpone the presentation of the report on Sri Lanka at its upcoming session in March.

U.S. Representative to the UNHRC Ambassador Keith Harper in a statement released on Monday said the United States supports the consensus decision taken by the Human Rights Council on the OHCHR’s report on Sri Lanka.

“We commend the pledges made – and initial steps taken – by the new Sri Lankan government to revive Sri Lanka’s democracy, improve governance, support credible justice and accountability mechanisms, enhance the protection of human rights, and facilitate reconciliation after nearly 30 years of war,” Ambassador Harper said.

He said the U.S. encourages the Sri Lankan Government to use the time between now and the release of the report to work jointly with OHCHR(Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) to achieve these shared goals, and – when the report is released – to duly consider the recommendations contained therein.

The UNHRC Monday granted a request made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein to delay the consideration of the report into alleged human rights violations during the conflict in Sri Lanka for six months until September 2015.

The U.S. Ambassador reaffirmed that his government is steadfast in its commitment to” ensuring accountability, justice, reconciliation, and respect for human rights for all the people of Sri Lanka.”

Full Statement of U.S, Ambassador Harper

Statement delivered by Ambassador Keith Harper, Representative of the United States to the United Nations Human Rights Council

HRC Organizational Meeting,

Geneva, February 16, 2015

Thank you Mr. President.

The United States supports the consensus decision taken today by the Human Rights Council on the OHCHR’s report on Sri Lanka.

We commend the pledges made – and initial steps taken – by the new Sri Lankan government to revive Sri Lanka’s democracy, improve governance, support credible justice and accountability mechanisms, enhance the protection of human rights, and facilitate reconciliation after nearly 30 years of war.

As Secretary Kerry said in Washington on February 12, the people of Sri Lanka voted to move Sri Lanka in a new direction. We encourage the Sri Lankan Government to use the time between now and the release of the report to work jointly with OHCHR to achieve these shared goals, and – when the report is released – to duly consider the recommendations contained therein.

As a main sponsor of resolution 25/1, the United States believes in the importance of the work that the High Commissioner and his team have undertaken. We very much look forward to the publication of OHCHR’s report later this year. When the Council provided this mandate to OHCHR, we entrusted the High Commissioner to discharge it faithfully.

The United States continues to trust in the High Commissioner in this regard. We are willing to be guided by his judgment as to how to best fulfill this mandate.

We joined this consensus decision to extend the time to release the OHCHR report based on the reasons that the High Commissioner offered. We hope that new information becomes available that will enable the report to provide the Council and the people of Sri Lanka a more complete picture of what occurred.

Mr. President, procedurally, we are grateful for the manner in which you and your Bureau have discharged your duties, and for the notification you provided to states ahead of this decision.

We believe that both you and the High Commissioner have conducted your work in a manner that will ensure preservation and respect for both the independence of OHCHR and the authority of the Human Rights Council and its member states.

Finally, I would like to reaffirm that the United States government is steadfast in our commitment to ensuring accountability, justice, reconciliation, and respect for human rights for all the people of Sri Lanka.

We are confident that the efforts here in Geneva will enable the international community and the Government of Sri Lanka to work together to realize these shared objectives.

The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has agreed to defer a report on Sri Lanka which was to be submitted to the Council during its 28th session next month, to September.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and the team appointed to compile the report after investigating the war in Sri Lanka, had recommended that the report be delayed.

Al Hussein today explained his recommendation to the Human Rights Council to delay the consideration of the long-awaited report into alleged human rights violations during the conflict in Sri Lanka for six months until September 2015.

The High Commissioner stressed that the deferral of the report was “for one time only,” and guaranteed that the report would be published by September. His request for deferral was granted by the Council on Monday afternoon.

“This has been a difficult decision,” Zeid said. “There are good arguments for sticking to the original timetable, and there are also strong arguments for deferring the report’s consideration a bit longer, given the changing context in Sri Lanka, and the possibility that important new information may emerge which will strengthen the report.”

“In addition, I have received clear commitments from the new Government of Sri Lanka indicating it is prepared to cooperate with my Office on a whole range of important human rights issues – which the previous Government had absolutely refused to do – and I need to engage with them to ensure those commitments translate into reality.”

The High Commissioner noted that the three distinguished experts, who were appointed by his predecessor Navi Pillay to advise the investigation, had informed him that, in their unanimous view, a one-off temporary deferral would be the best option to allow space for the new Government to show its willingness to cooperate on human rights issues.

“Taking all this into account, I have therefore decided, on balance, to request more time to allow for a stronger and more comprehensive report,” Zeid.

“I am acutely aware that many victims of human rights violations in Sri Lanka, including those who have bravely come forward to provide information to the inquiry team, might see this is as the first step towards shelving, or diluting, a report they have long feared they would never see. I fully understand those fears and deep anxieties, given the history of failed or obstructed domestic human rights inquiries in Sri Lanka, and the importance of this international investigation being carried out by my team at the UN Human Rights Office.”

“There should be no misunderstanding,” the High Commissioner continued. “I give my personal, absolute and unshakable commitment that the report will be published by September. Like my predecessors, I believe that one of the most important duties of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is to act as a strong voice on behalf of victims. I want this report to have the maximum possible impact in ensuring a genuine and credible process of accountability and reconciliation in which the rights of victims to truth, justice and reparations are finally respected.”

In March 2014, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) – a 47-member State body – adopted resolution 25/1 entitled ‘Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka’ which requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights “to undertake a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka during the period covered by Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission” which examined the last years of the armed conflict. The HRC requested the UN Human Rights Office “to establish the facts and circumstances of such alleged violations, and of the crimes perpetrated, with a view to avoiding impunity and ensuring accountability,” with assistance from relevant experts. The resolution requested the Office to present a comprehensive report at its 28th session in March 2015.

The British Government says establishing the truth over the events which allegedly took place in Sri Lanka during the war is a key step towards reconciliation.

British Foreign Office Minister Hugo Swire said that while the UN Human Rights Council has agreed to delay publishing the report based on the investigations on Sri Lanka, the British Government remains firmly behind publishing it in September.

Meanwhile the London based Amnesty International said that the decision by the UN Human Rights Council to delay, until September, the release of a key report into widespread human rights violations during the conflict in Sri Lanka must not allow the perpetrators of horrific crimes during the country’s armed conflict to escape punishment.

“Sri Lankan victims of human rights violations deserve truth and justice. Survivors of torture, including sexual abuse, people whose family members were killed or forcibly disappeared have waited a long time for this report,” said Richard Bennett, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Director.

“A delay is only justifiable if more time will lead to a stronger document and to a concrete commitment by the new Sri Lankan authorities to actively pursue accountability. This includes by co-operating with the UN to investigate conflict-era abuses and bring perpetrators to justice.”

Amnesty International said the Human Rights Council must also be vigilant and ensure that all those coming forward to give testimony are protected from any potential threats from those who do not want justice to prevail.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, said yesterday “I give my personal, absolute and unshakeable commitment that the report will be published by September” and that he had received a clear commitment from the new Sri Lankan authorities to cooperate on various issues related to the UN investigation.